Following a concerning trend in media discussions, a recent LA Times op-ed wrongly places blame on Israel while minimizing the true violence of Palestinian intifadas.
By Chaim Lax, Honest Reporting
In a recent opinion piece for the LA Times, Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab takes umbrage with New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s assertion that public calls for an intifada are akin to calls for the genocide of the Jewish people.
In making his case, Kuttab’s piece is riddled with historical revisionism, factual inaccuracies, and misleading statements, all in an effort to whitewash the violent nature of the two Palestinian intifadas and to lay the onus for continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians solely at the feet of the Jewish state.
‘Civil Disobedience & Protest’: The First Intifada
In defending the use of the term “intifada” (literally “shaking off”), Daoud Kuttab asserts that it is a Palestinian “demand for freedom from occupation” and that its sole focus is on ending Israeli control over the post-1967 territories.
Following this favorable presentation of the term “intifada,” Kuttab then initiates his whitewashing of reality, beginning with the First Intifada.
For anyone unfamiliar with Israeli and Palestinian history, the First Intifada would appear from Daoud Kuttab’s description to have been a righteous struggle for civil rights similar to those that took place in the southern United States or South Africa.
In fact, this is not mere hyperbole as he actually writes “Initially, the intifada included the methods of resistance practiced by Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.”
This complimentary portrayal of the First Intifada is further reinforced by a later description of it as “six years of civil disobedience and protest.”
While it is true that the First Intifada included acts of non-violence, it is disingenuous for Kuttab to present those six years as an idealistic struggle for peace and freedom.
From the start, the First Intifada was also defined by Palestinian violence against Israeli soldiers and civilians.
It is estimated that during the first four years, there were “more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives” directed against Israelis.
In fact, for an “uprising” supposedly directed against “the occupation, not Israel,” more Israeli civilians were killed during the First Intifada than members of the Israeli security forces. Of these Israeli civilians, more were killed within pre-1967 Israel than were killed in the West Bank, Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem.
Between the Two Intifadas: The Oslo Years
Following his rosy assessment of the First Intifada, Daoud Kuttab then turns his attention to the Oslo era, the 7 years between the signing of the Oslo Accords by Yitzhak Rabin’s Israeli government and Yasser Arafat’s PLO and the eruption of the Second Intifada.
To hear Kuttab tell it, Israel and the Palestinians were on a clear course for rapprochement and friendly relations between two states until a right-wing Israeli extremist assassinated Rabin in 1995, leading to Benjamin Netanyahu’s first government, which “multiplied illegal settlements” in the West Bank. Ultimately, all blame is laid at Israel’s feet for the demise of the Oslo Accords.
However, this brief history of the Oslo era is overly simplistic and misleading in several ways.
First, it does not take into account the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism, including suicide bombings, shootings, firebombs, and stabbings, which was aimed at derailing the Oslo peace process and inflicting severe damage against both Israeli security forces and civilians.
Second, contrary to Kuttab’s assertion, there was no mass proliferation of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza under the first Netanyahu government. In fact, as part of the Oslo process, there was a freeze on the establishment of new Israeli communities in these areas. This led to the development of outposts, small communities which are established without government approval.
Third, during his first tenure as prime minister, Netanyahu continued to engage in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), culminating in the signing of the Wye River Memorandum. Under this agreement, Israel ceded more territory to the control of the PA and agreed to release a large number of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for counter-terrorism efforts on the part of the PA.
Lastly, no mention is made of the 2000 Camp David summit, where Arafat walked away from negotiations with then-Israeli PM Ehud Barak and ultimately began planning the Second Intifada.
Shootings, Suicide Bombings & Stabbings: The Second Intifada
Unlike his portrayal of the First Intifada, Kuttab does not go into great detail about the Second Intifada.
However, what he does write about the Second Intifada is just as deceptive and misleading.
Kuttab states that in 2000:
Israeli prime minister candidate Ariel Sharon staged a deliberately provocative campaign visit to Al Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinian protests that followed were violently and fatally put down, and so began the second intifada, a recognition that negotiation and nonviolence had failed to end the occupation and create an independent Palestinian state.
In just one paragraph, Kuttab misleads his readers into believing several factual inaccuracies, including:
- That Ariel Sharon visited the Al Aqsa Mosque. In fact, he never entered the mosque but walked around the Temple Mount complex, the holiest site in Judaism.
- That the Palestinian response to Sharon’s visit was “protests” that were “violently and fatally put down.” In fact, the immediate response to the visit included the stoning of Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall and gun battles between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen.
- That the Second Intifada was a grassroots response to the Sharon visit and subsequent Israeli violence. In fact, even Palestinian sources agree that it was planned ahead of time by the Palestinian leadership. Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was just a convenient justification for the Palestinian leadership to put its plan into effect.
The reason why Kuttab’s description of the Second Intifada might be so sparse is that for many people, it is defined by a spate of suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, stonings, and other attacks against both Israeli civilians and security forces.
As well, many of these attacks were directed against restaurants, nightclubs, and Jewish religious gatherings in cities in pre-1967 Israel, including Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Netanya.
Thus, the Second Intifada belies Kuttab’s rosy image of an intifada as a righteous venture whose “target is not Jews but Israel’s illegal occupation.”
Daoud Kuttab is not the only person to recently gaslight Jews and Israelis about what an “intifada” is.
Both MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan and talking head Peter Beinart have recently claimed that calls for an intifada are not inherently violent and that an intifada is a legitimate form of “uprising” against Israel.
Imagine being a professor and not understanding the definition of the word ‘explicitly’.
You can believe that ‘intifada’ chants are calls for violence – they aren’t btw! – but what you can’t do is claim they are ‘explicit’ calls for violence when, *by definition*, they are not. https://t.co/0XiijMfOGD
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 12, 2023
While there can be a discussion about whether a call to “globalize the intifada” is a call for the genocide of Jews (as was recently claimed in the US Congress) or whether the term “intifada” has other linguistic connotations, it is the height of gaslighting to try to argue that when calling for an “intifada” in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the word connotes anything other than the indiscriminate violence against Israeli civilians which plagued the First and Second Intifadas.